> You asked me what I support and I told you. Whether or not it's realistic
> is another question. I'm very tired however of being told that even the
> articulation of a dream is forbidden.
>
> Joanna
>
> Michael Hirsch wrote:
>
>> Joanne:
>> Well and good. You support a unitary, secular state, repatriation and
>> reparations. And I support revolutionary socialism, mutual aid and
>> hanging the last capitalist with the entrails of the last priest. I do!
>> No sarcasm intended. Wanna join me?
---------------------------------
Dreams aren't forbidden, and stances based on "politics" (what is
realizable) versus stances primarily based on "morality" (what should be)
have always divided the left and other social movements. The latter emphasis
is strongest among intellectuals, who give primacy to ideas and are less
affected by material conditions. The masses fear an adverse change to their
material conditions of existence, and move forward or retreat in social
struggles based primarily on this calculation. The exhausting struggle of
the Palestinians should be seen in this context. What is realistic today in
their circumstances is not simply "another question" but a life and death
matter for them.
This doesn't mean, as is sometimes supposed, that taking account of political realities is necessarily conservatizing and acting on "principle" or "dreams" is more radical. Lenin was an outstanding example of the pragmatic revolutionary "politician" who was able to radically adjust his perspectives when the seizure of power seemed "realizable" based on the movement from below of the Russian masses for peace, land, and bread. But a collapse of social order is not the norm, which is why social movements tend to be reformist rather than revolutionary in practice, even where they start out intending otherwise. Needless to say there is an interaction between conditions and ideas, but intellectuals are prone to placing the emphasis where it doesn't belong. .